Allahabad High Court
MOHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The excavation was not mining within the meaning of Rule‑3 and its explanation, and the State failed to establish the requisite mineral nature or depth, so the penalty cannot be imposed.
Summary
Mohan Singh excavated soil to level his agricultural land. The District Magistrate imposed a Rs 5,00,000 penalty under U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021, which was confirmed by the Commissioner. Singh contended that the excavation was merely soil removal, exempt under a 2018 Government Order and not a mining activity. The State relied on Rule‑58 of the Rules and Sections 21, 22 and 23‑A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Court held that the Rules define mining as activities requiring a lease or permit, and an explanation excludes manual digging of ordinary earth for non‑mineral purposes where the pit is not deeper than two metres; the State failed to prove the material was a mineral or that the depth exceeded the limit, nor was there any conviction or compounding. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the excavation of soil for agricultural leveling constitutes ‘unauthorised mining’ attracting penalty under Rule‑58 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021.
- Whether Sections 21, 22 and 23‑A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are applicable to the petitioner’s conduct.
Legislation cited
- Government Order dated 28 March 2018
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — s. 21(4), 21(4-A), 21(5), 22, 23-A
- U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 3, Rule 58
Subjects
- unauthorised mining
- penalty under mining rules
- Mines and Minerals Act
- excavation of soil
- agricultural land leveling
- administrative authority jurisdiction
- compounding of offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 13071 of 2026
Mohan Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)
1. Petitioner says he undertook excavation activity for leveling of his land
to enable agriculture. He has challenged order dated 13th September,
2024 passed by respondent no. 3 (the District Magistrate) imposing Rs.
5,00,000/- as penalty. The order was confirmed by also impugned
appellate order dated 28th January, 2026 passed by respondent no. 2 (the
Commissioner). Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appearing
for petitioner submits, under Government Order (GO) dated 28th March,
2018, no royalty is payable for excavating soil. He reiterates, his client
did it for purpose of leveling his land for agriculture.
2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel,
appears on behalf of State. He hands up his instruction dated 20th April,
2026 with copy to Mr. Pandey. He submits, the penalty was duly imposed
on finding by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the Commissioner.
He had earlier referred to rule-58 in U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession)
Rules, 2021. He also relies on sections 21, 22 and 23-A in Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of intended
intervener and submits, his client was complainant. He hands up his
client's application. On query he submits, it is on his client's complaint,
the State authorities moved against petitioner. There should not be
interference.
WRIC No. 13071 of 2026
2
4. The writ petition was moved on 7th April, 2026. Paragraph-4 from
order made that day is reproduced below.
"4. State has to satisfy on petitioner having been convicted for imposition
of the penalty. Furthermore, to enforce and recover, State has also to
demonstrate depth of excavation and the measurement made, upon notice
to petitioner."
As things stand, State appears to have taken cognizance of complainant's
complaint and moved to impose the penalty. The Commissioner has
confirmed the imposition.
5. Rule-58 is reproduced below.
"58. Penalty for unauthorized mining-Whoever contravenes the
provisions of Rule 3 shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend up to five years or with
fine which shall not be less than of 2 lacs rupees per hectare and which
may extend to five lacs rupees per hectare of the area, or with both."
We have also seen explanation following the proviso in rule-3. The
explanation and proviso are reproduced below.
"Rule-3 Mining operations to be under a mining lease or mining permit-
...
Explanation-For the purposes of this rule digging manual digging or
manual extraction of ordinary clay, ordinary earth for making bricks and
pottery shall not be treated as mining operations:
Provided that pit created by such digging or extraction should not be
deeper than two meters."
6. State's answer is reliance on sections 21, 22 and 23-A in the Act of
1957. Section 21 provides for penalties. Relied upon sub-sections are sub-
sections (4), (4-A) and (5). Section 21 (4) and (4-A) talks about, inter
alia, raising any mineral from any land, to provide for seizure of the
mineral and all tools used in the raising. Section 21 (5) talks about
WRIC No. 13071 of 2026
3
recovery of the minerals raised or, where it is disposed of, the price
thereof. Section 22 talks about cognizance of offences. The power is with
the administrative authority as the section bars Court from taking
cognizance. Section 23-A provides for compounding of offences. Dr.
Tripathi points out rule 72, for compounding. We do see it is the
procedure following substantive provisions in section 23-A.
7. Rule-58 provides for imposition of penalty on conviction. Materials on
record show that there was report prepared by the Mines Inspector and
other officers put their signature on it. It appears to have been placed
before respondent no. 3 (the District Magistrate), who made endorsement
imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This was confirmed by respondent no.
3 (the Commissioner). There is no indication of conviction nor
compounding. The provisions in the rules and Act, relied upon by State,
are in no way applicable to the facts. State, through its functionaries must
make proper enquiry to demonstrate that the excavated material is mineral
and not soil as provided in rule-3. Depth of the excavation is also to be
ascertained. It is only after proper enquiry, there can be a charge made,
for purpose of prosecution and conviction. Of course on charge being
made there can also be compounding.
8. Impugned order of the District Magistrate as confirmed by the
Commissioner (respective orders dated 13th September, 2024 and 28th
January, 2026) are set aside and quashed.
9. In view of aforesaid, the intervention application is treated on day's list.
It be registered and numbered. The writ petition is allowed and alongwith
the application, disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shiraz
Digitally signed by :-
SHIRAZ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…